Template talk:Conjecture

Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia issue

This talk page proposal has already been settled. Please do not edit this section or its subsections. If you wish to discuss the article, please do so in a new section below the proposal.

Adjust the wording on Template:Conjecture and Template:Another language 9-0
A discussion in Discord with Camwood777 about Pattan's name in the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia had me double-check the page, and I noticed something we should probably clarify in this template. As it is now, it reads "If an official name appears, it is requested that the article should be moved to the correct name." Encyclopedia Super Mario Bros. is, for all intents and purposes, an official source of information; it's just not one we recognize due to the heavily "borrowed" content it uses from us.

Wondering if we should change the sentence to read this: "If an official name appears that is not from the English Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia, it is requested that the article should be moved to the correct name.", with a link to MarioWiki:Naming#Super_Mario_Bros._Encyclopedia to clarify why we don't source them.

This will also be for the line in Template:Another language.

Proposer: Alex95 (talk)
Deadline: December 28, 2019, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Alex95 (talk) - I realize some users may just ignore reading the template and template information altogether, but that's their problem.
2. Results May Vary (talk) - I agree on this, although there could be future examples of more sources that take names from Super Mario Wiki.
3. Waluigi Time (talk) Per all.
4. Power Flotzo (talk) I'm all for this clarification. Per all.
5. FanOfYoshi (talk) For those who come here just to change something in the text, like what has been done previously on this page.
6. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.
7. BBQ Turtle (talk) Per all.
8. Yoshi the SSM (talk) Per all.
9. Mister Wu (talk) I wonder if "that is not from a source that borrows English names from this wiki" in place of "that is not from the English Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia" is more future-proof, but at the moment this will surely do the job.

Comments

I was actually considering creating a proposal to make one exception to how the wiki handles Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia (namely the Super Mario Land 2 course names, which are just over a page-worth of direct translations that seems the least likely content to have been taken from elsewhere), but if this proposal passes then I'll probably nix it. LinkTheLefty (talk) 18:47, December 14, 2019 (EST)

I don't remember SML2 having names for the levels anyway, so their information is probably just as conjectural as ours. Unless someone has an NP guide of it somewhere. For curiosity's sake, what does the Encyclopedia call them? 21:30, December 14, 2019 (EST)

It names the majority of the zones and courses on page 77, with the last and secret courses for Turtle Zone and the castle world on page 78. It also has a different name than we have for the first level, the Start (スタート), but otherwise it seems to match the Shogakukan names as well as calls the casino (カシノ) as such on page 79. For future reference, here are the level names from the English version of the book with all the Japanese equivalents in parentheses.

• Mario Land (マリオランド): Gate Course (ゲートコース), Scenic Course (展望台コース).
• Tree Zone (ツリーゾーン): Tree Trunk Course (木のみきコース), Roots Course (根っこコース), Bee Hive Course (ハチの巣コース), Leaf Course (はっぱコース), Owl Course (ふくろうコース), Secret Course 1 (ひみつのコース１).
• Space Zone (スペースゾーン): Bubble Course (しゃぼん玉コース), Moon Course (ムーンコース), Star Course (スターコース), Secret Course 2 (ひみつのコース２).
• Macro Zone (マクロゾーン): Manhole Course (マンホールコース), Flower Course (花だんコース), Fireplace Course (だんろコース), Attic Course (屋根裏コース), Secret Course 3 (ひみつのコース３).
• Pumpkin Zone (パンプキンゾーン): Bat Course (コウモリ館コース), Graveyard Course (妖怪寺コース), Haunted House Course (お化け屋敷コース), Witch’s Mansion Course (魔女の家コース), Secret Course 4 (ひみつのコース４), Secret Course 5 (ひみつのコース５).
• Mario Zone (マリオゾーン): Gear Course (歯車コース), Gumball Course (ゴムボールコース), Crane Course (クレーンコース), Block Course (ブロックコース).
• Turtle Zone (タートルゾーン): Cheep Cheep Course (プクプクコース), Sunken Ship Course (ちんぼつ船コース), Whale Course (くじらコース), Secret Course 6　(ひみつのコース６).
• Wario’s Castle (ワリオ城): Inside Wario’s Castle (ワリオ城内).

We can just cite the Japanese version, but either way, these should at least be better than the current conjectural "Area" names. LinkTheLefty (talk) 07:50, December 15, 2019 (EST)

Update: since you brought up Nintendo Power, I double-checked and realized I overlooked some names present in the Super Game Boy Player's Guide. Here they are, with page number in parentheses.

• Mario’s Castle (20), Hippo Stage (21).
• Tree Zone (22): Invincibility! (mistakenly also labeled as "2" but screenshot and description show otherwise), In the Trees, Honeybees, The Exit, Final Boss: The Big Bird.
• Macro Zone (23): The Ant Monsters, In the Syrup Sea, Fiery Mario–Special Agent, Endless Hearts / Final Boss: One Mighty Mouse! (same level but boss has extra info as "5").
• Mario Zone (24): Fiery Blocks, Mario the Circus Star!, Beware: Jagged Spikes, Final Bosses: Three Mean Pigs!.

And that's it: secret courses are unmentioned and the Turtle Zone, Pumpkin Zone, Space Zone, and final level are briefly mentioned on page 25, so that still leaves the question of the remaining names. LinkTheLefty (talk) 09:11, December 15, 2019 (EST)

Well, even if we don't use the SMBE, the Japanese names of the official guide work. 22:55, December 15, 2019 (EST)

Yeah, there are too much errors, i think making a counterproposal won't work (and i don't support it by now). -- FanOfYoshi at 08:31, December 16, 2019 (EST)

Definitely not borrowed, since it's been taken without permisson, so it's stolen. -- FanOfYoshi at 12:21, December 19, 2019 (EST)

...i thought we all knew that already? TheDarkStar 13:51, December 19, 2019 (EST)

I suppose we can just use the other guide names, though the result is going to look a bit eclectic. LinkTheLefty (talk) 09:54, December 24, 2019 (EST)

@Mister Wu: While that change would work for the future, SMBE is (to my knowledge) the only official publication we have outright banned using on the wiki due to the widespread information it uses from us. If another piece of official media does the same mistake, the line can be adjusted in the future, but every piece of information from us that is officially recognized and used sparingly seems a bit much. In my eyes, if Nintendo's translators uses something we named (Rudy the Clown, Black Jewel, etc.), it means we were recognized and they decided that name sounds better/didn't care enough to look up the actual usage. Attribution would certainly be helpful, though ^^; 16:33, December 22, 2019 (EST)

Also, don't forget that we do have something else that was possibly sourced from the wiki (Polterpiranha/Ghost, since it seems unlikely that Super Smash Bros. Ultimate literally referred back to a short name from a Nintendo 3DS / Wii U trophy, as well as -potentially- Fire Nipper Plant even though that's a direct localization), but if we see something at or near the scope of Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia then we can cross that bridge when we get there. LinkTheLefty (talk) 09:54, December 24, 2019 (EST)

We get there when we get ther Yeah, speaking of that, Octopus also has been named as such in the Encyclopedia despite not receiving a proper name in earlier official sources. How will we handle it? -- FanOfYoshi at 10:34, December 24, 2019 (EST)

I plan to create a different proposal when this one is over that will address the Super Mario Land 2 enemy names (i.e. whether we should use Japanese names or generic descriptors). LinkTheLefty (talk) 11:14, December 24, 2019 (EST)

Future of the "section" aspect of this template

So, to be honest — I was actually about to put together a proposal regarding the "part" aspect on this template. It feels a little to the side of what the rest of the template is about, and it doesn't give any indication of what part is conjecturally included, so I wanted to fix those things by splitting it off into a template that would go at the top of sections.

However, an unwitting assumption in that is that the "part" functionality was having to coexist with the "section" functionality. And the fact of the matter is, it is not — Category:Articles with conjectural section titles has one section that just seems to say the episode's title is conjectural (in which case it shouldn't be on the references article, it should be on the article for the episode) and then the entire rest of it is galaxies whose conjecture templates we collectively voted to remove. In other words, none of the things in that category should actually be there.

And the thing is... I can't actually think of anything else that would warrant the sectional version of this template. Or especially the "subsection" version — I didn't even remember the proposal to make that one passing. Article sections generally aren't names that would be conjectural.

I guess I don't really have a conclusion here. Should we deprecate the section parameters of this template? Rework the "section" parameter to take on the current subject of the "part" parameter? I feel like I should be saying something like that at the end here, but maybe I'm just too used to making proposals. Ahemtoday (talk) 09:41, January 3, 2025 (EST)

Split and rework the "partial conjecture" aspect of this template

This talk page section contains an unresolved talk page proposal. Please try to help and resolve the issue by voting or leaving a comment.

Current time: Friday, February 21, 2025, 14:25 GMT

For the record, I'm talking about the mode where the template says this:

The title of this article is conjectural for a part of its content. If an acceptable name is found for the currently unnamed portion of content, then it may need to be split into a new article.

I have two issues with how this is currently implemented:

• To start with, I'm not sure about phrasing this entirely as an offshoot of the idea of conjectural names. It could be clearer what exactly this template means.
• My more major issue, and the primary reason this proposal exists, is: what part? The template does not indicate which parts of the article it applies to, which makes it of extremely limited use.

To fix this, I would like to split off the "part" mode into its own template, Template:Conjectural merge. This template would go at the top of each section it applies to, would include a category tag to Category:Articles with conjecturally merged sections, and would read:

The subject of this section has not been officially identified, so our editors have conjecturally merged it into this article. If an acceptable name is found for this section's subject, it may need to be split into a new article.

Now, because of the very issue this proposal is seeking to remedy, it's not possible for me to tell which sections the template applies to on every single one of the twenty articles with the partial conjecture template. As such, similarly to the proposal that made names in other languages require a citation, I feel this template has to be able to account for those situations. Our new conjectural merge template will have a parameter, "unknown", that will change the template to read:

This article contains at least one section about something that not been officially identified as the subject of the rest of the article, but which section is unknown. If it is determined which section(s) have been conjecturally merged, then this template should be removed and Template:Conjectural merge should be placed at the top of the section or sections.

Unlike the primary mode of this template, this mode would be placed at the top of the article and add the article to Category:Articles with unknown conjecturally merged sections. I suppose a day will probably come when no articles will have this version of the template, but for now I think it'll be necessary to have.

This split will differentiate this more unique situation from the typical use of the conjecture template, and also allow it to actually indicate the places to which it applies. It being a separate template will also allow any unique parameters it may need to be added without cluttering up the conjecture template.

Proposer: Ahemtoday (talk)
Deadline: February 7, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Ahemtoday (talk) Per proposal.
2. Camwoodstock (talk) Makes sense to us. The wording of "a part of its content" is in dire need of more clarity, and this could provide it.
3. Sparks (talk) Per all.
4. LadySophie17 (talk) Per all. Current description is way too vague.
5. Blinker (talk) Per proposal.